https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3360 The dispute concerned whether MAT credit under Section 115JAA had to be considered before charging interest under Sections 234B and 234C, and whether the levy under Section 234B was penal or mandatory. The Supreme Court held that the controversy raised a substantial question of law because it required examination of the interaction between MAT credit and the interest provisions, along with the relevant precedent. It found that the High Court had erred in holding that no substantial question of law arose, set aside the impugned judgment, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with law. en-us Tue, 04 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Dec 2024 13:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3360 The dispute concerned whether MAT credit under Section 115JAA had to be considered before charging interest under Sections 234B and 234C, and whether the levy under Section 234B was penal or mandatory. The Supreme Court held that the controversy raised a substantial question of law because it required examination of the interaction between MAT credit and the interest provisions, along with the relevant precedent. It found that the High Court had erred in holding that no substantial question of law arose, set aside the impugned judgment, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 04 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3360